coz i know for sure that if it
- could be digitally-copied
- needed by people
- published today
- and there’s thing called “internet”

then creating my stuff would have been only 10% and so-easy-part, the rest 90% is others and definitely-not-under-my-control.

got it?

The people who steal the music do so and try to justify it by saying it is their right. In reality these people are greedy and don’t want to pay for it if they can get it free. They want more material. This is no worse then the company owners who try to justify their greed by the so called “losses” from piracy.

On the other side of the fence are the rich stock holders and CEO’s and whoever else, who have tons of money, and the more they get the more they want. They therefore try to gain even more money by saying they would have made so-and-so amount if it weren’t due to the “losses,” and in turn spend their life trying to gain every dime they can even if they already have millions.

In the end both sides are greedy bastards who will lie, cheat, and steal to get their way, with each trying to justify it. And if the positions were switched, everything would be the same. The ones who were claiming it is their “right” to have the music will then turn and call it “piracy that must be stopped” in order to fill their pockets. And the ones who would have owned parts of these companies would then be the ones claiming it’s their “right” to jack someone else’s music. It’s pathetic to watch the crooks on both sides argue.

However, as I, nor any of my direct compatriots profit from the endevor, I really can’t be bothered to care.

Exactly. I only get $20 allowance a week (and I have to admit, I’m all the fail at saving money). That’s why I’ve downloading all 5 seasons of Angel instead of paying the $100 some odd for them.

I’m currently looking for a job. Once I get that job (and have my money taken away by the gas company, car insurance company and medical insurance company), if I have enough money left, I’m totally planning on buying the DVDs.

Now, as far as music, I have a *huge* issue with paying for it (that’s no longer an issue, thanks to iTunes :D). I feel that if I am to pay for a music file, any music file, I should be able to rip or burn it as many times as I want, as often as I want and *anywhere* I want. Until iTunes came out with the DRM free MP3s, I saw no reason to waste money on them.

Also: Artists won’t get money for me for their concerts. I find concerts rather boring, and hate the live performances just as much. The screaming fangirls ruin the whole thing for me. That, and how goddamn loud it is, combined with the screaming fangirls. Yes, I know you love The Wonders. Now sit down and STFU, because I WANT TO LISTEN TO THEIR GODDAMN SONG!! I don’t want to hear you screaming “OH!! I LOVE YOU!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!”

If I were to pay for a concert, I’d prefer *not* to hear people screaming, kthanx. If I want to hear people screaming, I can go to WalMart. If I go to a concert, I go to hear *the band* or *the artist* perform. Not their screaming fangirls.

Also: I download files, but I try not to upload them when I can (yes, I’m the dreaded leecher). I assure you, if I did not live in the US (MPAA/RIAA capital of the universe), I’d seed every time I turned on my external drive. But because I live in the US, I have to be more wary of some pompous company suing me because I allowed someone from Russia to download a whole season of their show, that the person in Russia can’t pay for because the paying sites are only for Americans. End run-on sentence.

No, no one looses money. It’s just that they don’t gain what they potentially might have gained.

If they were going to gain any money from me, wouldn’t I just pay for it in the *first* place, instead of downloading it for free?

Also: I’m willing to pay $25 for a CD, when the record companies stop wasting space with the ‘default’ format and switch to MP3 and fill up all 703MB of the space. I see no point in paying $25 for 10 songs when that *exact* same CD can hold up to 150, 200 maybe 350 at most. (I think it’s 200, right?)

However, music? Bite me. While it is ‘wrong’, I don’t particularly care. If people my age were downloading music with the intent to re-sell, or redistribute for a profit, then there would be a problem. However, as I, nor any of my direct compatriots profit from the endevor, I really can’t be bothered to care.

There you have it.

I think most people feel a slight twinge of guilt if they DL something they know they would and could have paid for (which was distributed in a good timely quality fair way) but instead chose to DL and keep their money. (though in most cases the astonishing soulless greed demonstrated by the wealthy corporations and wealth of many artists manages to significantly lessen such twinges)

The idea that because you exist you must purchase our product and not doing so is stealing is rather abhorrent.

Also you can legally copy patents or designs for your own use and if I could materialize stuff at will I would have no issues with making Buggati Veyrons and Rolex’s materialize for my own use.
I wouldn’t shed a tear for De Beers as I make diamonds appear.

Actually that’s how the law used to be, until January 1 2006 when Lex Karpela came into effect and made downloading illegal too. Perhaps the kids haven’t been following it. But not that anyone follows that law here -.-

It has been proven in science that although IQ tests do project overall intelligence, Your IQ AIN’T a determining factor of your “smartness” so to say.

do some more reading, check out some solid information on IQ THEORY then maybe you will be a bit less of……. AN INSECURE ASS HOLE.

Heck, even the RIAA themselves are unable to prosecute for theft, they prosecute you for copyright infringement.

So would people please stop saying that its stealing when it isn’t. Its IP infringement.

I also wish that people would stop saying that an illegally shared file is a lost sale. It isn’t it. It is only a POTENTIAL lost sale. As it is impossible to ascertain at what price that POTENTIAL lost sale would become an actual sale then the RIAA and the music industry are talking out of their arse when they say they lost x amount of revenue.

* one group that goes “omfg, gag lool” and generally doesn’t contribute

* one group that goes “fuck the media companies, hell fuck everybody! ohyeahIdownloadhah”

* another group that goes “you are wrong, stealing is wrong ,have thee no shame?!”

* a new group which arguments against it with intelligent arguments

then we have the following sub-ingredients which may or may not be a part:

* the annoying joker person that makes a mockery of the thread (that would be me)

* a comparison with fascist or nazism policies

* bad analogies to filesharing and how it’s illegal because “it’s NOT like copying your car! it’s nooot!”

* even worse arguments of laws and whatnot

* pure namecalling

so, in the future, I urge everyone to stop participating in these threads, because they are boring, pointless and basically a rehash of every other thread like it. Nobody ever reaches any kind of conclusion, or solution to the problem either, which is rather funny to note.

My solution though, would be simple: outlaw media companies and make media free by law. That would force the artists to seek out other ways of revenue, or quit, which is the best thing, because the world has a huge media underground which is far better than it’s commercial counterpart.

About concerts being expensive. Even if not everyone wants to pay the price, a lot of people will still come. The price is probably high because the artists are quite popular. My point is that concerts is their main source of income and they won’t die without their cd-sales, which i guess the big corporations take the most money of anyway.

[quote comment="147183"]“Ahh,
there is hope for the future at last.

Just wait until those kids take over power.”

No, there isn’t. These children are just cheap, they will be as money hungry and as stupid as the batch we are currently on. There is no change in the human genome. There are very few people who download illicitly for a purpose other than to save money.
And even fewer who can understand it and debate for it without looking like an idiot, saying that they are already too rich as their only excuse[/quote]

If you want better excuses maybe you should not debate with the kids then. Do you consider yourself as money hungry and stupid as you seem to describe both the kids and older generations? Whether greed or stupidity is a part of the human genome belongs to another discussion because i don’t see how it is connected to file sharing.

File sharing is a result of how internet and p2p technology have changed the way in which people interact with information as Agmar so nicely put it. File sharing is illegal because of the laws which are out-of-date and obsolete. It should not be compared to stealing, however that still doesn’t make it morally right, that is what the minds of the people will define. But one thing that is sure is that people will continue to share and the peoples opinions will reflect in the laws because the laws are shaped after society. When society changes the laws will have to change too.

This will probably be my last post here. I’ve enjoyed this discussion too and you’ve given me a lot to think about. Bye and thanks!

Just wait until those kids take over power.”

No, there isn’t. These children are just cheap, they will be as money hungry and as stupid as the batch we are currently on. There is no change in the human genome. There are very few people who download illicitly for a purpose other than to save money.
And even fewer who can understand it and debate for it without looking like an idiot, saying that they are already too rich as their only excuse

Anyway, i have enjoyed the discussion, especially that it seems to have taken place amongst mature individuals without any of the normal name calling and trolling I’ve seen elsewhere. For now, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinions thus far and indeed you have given me some new outlooks on the whole topic.

As I said, the matter is not really so black and white for myself either. I have downloaded songs or tv shows that were not made available to me through what I consider legal means (itunes or emusic). I do not mind paying for digital copies of songs at all. Same with DVD’s.

I don’t necessarily agree totally with your own outlooks, but i do see your arguments and accept them as an alternate viewpoint. I’d keep going back and forth, but I am spent for now! It has been fun engaging in this discussion. Thanks!

Ok, you lost money; So what? Don’t do it again. Why should you use the law to guarentee your profits?

[quote]If I write a book about teaching, I’d hope to get compensated by people buying it.[/quote]

And you still would without copyright.

Just you might have to make sure the book is good and not overpriced.

[quote]To get people to do things just for the sake of doing things without compensation somehow is not going to happen right away. [/quote]

It happens in the file sharing world, as well as many other places.

People spend their time and often money to make releases. They don’t get paid for it, they just like doing it for the spread of free culture.

Also another example is open source. A great deal of open source software development is not for profit, but instead about making the best software possible.

[quote]No, of course not, you go because you need the paycheck. And while some people love their jobs, take their paycheck away, and see how long they continue to do it. [/quote]

You are in the delusion that artists would go broke without copyright.

People will always want to go to concerts.

I like the analogy of making a copy of a can of soda. Here’s the thing though, when you copy the soda, you have to take your OWN ingredients and mix them together just right. With a song or data file, the technology allows you to just make a copy. What if you had to play the music yourself to make a copy? What if to make a copy of the song to share YOU yourself had to perform it? The soda? You’re copying it, anyone can) but you are actually creating it again from scratch from a recipe with all new materials. You’re not taking the contents of the can and turning it into a new copy. The song? You are just taking it and copying it. IF you had to do it all again yourself and create the song from scratch, guitars vocals and all, then I could see it being allright to copy. It’s more like a cover version of a song then. The soda is like a cover version of the soda.[/quote]

When i download a song a new identical song is being created from scratch from a recipe with new materials, materials being a lot of one’s and zero’s.
If i did it all myself and created the song from scratch, guitars vocals and all, it would not be an identical copy of the song, it would be a cover as you said. But since sounds is vibrations, i could use my mystery-device to analyze the song and create a new series of vibrations identical to the first and thus the new copy of the song would indeed be an exact copy. The analogy with the clothes is better in this case because it is easier to create an exact copy with the right skills and tools.

[quote comment="146937"]
What about copying a book? IF we photocopy a book and pass it around to friends, that is considered illegal as well I believe. I dont think many people do this because it is a lot tougher to copy a 400 page book then it is to copy a 3 mb file.

The basic idea is the same though.

It’s illegal as well.
[/quote]

I have thought of that too. It happened with the last Harry Potter book. I’m tired and can’t come up with anything about books now but i shall quote this interesting comment by Agmar just because:

[quote comment="146603"]
As an example consider the printing press, arguably, before digital data, the printing press was the technology that allowed more people access to information, taking it out of the exclusive control of medival monestaries. imagine monestaries used their lobbying power to outlaw the printing press, so they could maintain their control over information dispersal.
This is analagous to the various media companies imposing DRM restrictions, harsh copyright laws, etc on filesharing.[/quote]

[quote comment="146937"]
I do believe that an artist has a right to ask for compensation from a song, whether it be a file or cd. Again, no one has really said much about my example of making my own song, and hoping to get my cut of the 99 cents every time it sells on iTunes. IF it sells 1000 times, I get a cut of that. If one person buys it and shares it, I have lost out on a lot of money.
[/quote]

True that they might lose money from filesharing, but they might gain also. If an artist would share his songs for free, willingly or unwillingly, that artist might reach out to a lot more people that would not have bought his/her music anyway. That would increase the artists popularity and draw more people to his/hers live performances which IS the artists main form of revenue.

[quote comment="146937"]
It doesn’t matter if one is rich or not, if they would like to get compensated, they should be if people like their stuff. Painters, authors, musicians, whatever. They deserve to get paid. Do they deserve as much money as they do? Probably not. I take a lot of issues with the sports stars getting the million dollar contracts, while our teachers (myself included) make next to nothing. If I write a book about teaching, I’d hope to get compensated by people buying it. No I wouldn’t be in it for just the money, but without the money, I’d be broke and unable to live.
[/quote]

We have this stupid “cassette-fee” which is a fee on all empty storage-media like dvd’s and mp3′s that are sold here in sweden. It’s purpose is to compensate the copyright owners for when a private person makes a legal copy for his/her own usage.

I don’t think anyone should be compensated just because people like their stuff. If they want money they should produce an object or a service of some kind that people are willing to pay for. in the case of musicians, it’s live performances, not plastic disks with a few songs on. They should instead give away the songs for free as a means to spread their music, increase their popularity and draw people to their concerts, which i repeat is their main stream of income.

[quote comment="146937"]
Thinking that artists should just be happy their stuff is out there and being seen, is a very Utopian view of a world we don’t live in and won’t for an extremely long time.
[/quote]

Ask an artist where his/her income comes from. It’s certainly not 100% album sales. Someone should have made a survey about that to see just how much impact file sharing has and could have on the artist income, not the fat music corporations who is desperately fighting file sharing to secure their profit instead of adapting and actually secure their profit.

Now i will go too sleep since the clock is already 01 am here. Goodnight, although you may not read it until it’s morning again.

SIGN THIS PETITION FOR ABOLISHING THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM ACT! [there is very small chance of congress actually taking this seriously but it is still worth a try]
SIGN IT NOW!

Fair Use says you can make a backup of your CDs and music. If you are borrowing your friend’s CD, then making a copy wouldnt constitute fair use.

I like the analogy of making a copy of a can of soda. Here’s the thing though, when you copy the soda, you have to take your OWN ingredients and mix them together just right. With a song or data file, the technology allows you to just make a copy. What if you had to play the music yourself to make a copy? What if to make a copy of the song to share YOU yourself had to perform it? The soda? You’re copying it, anyone can) but you are actually creating it again from scratch from a recipe with all new materials. You’re not taking the contents of the can and turning it into a new copy. The song? You are just taking it and copying it. IF you had to do it all again yourself and create the song from scratch, guitars vocals and all, then I could see it being allright to copy. It’s more like a cover version of a song then. The soda is like a cover version of the soda.

What about copying a book? IF we photocopy a book and pass it around to friends, that is considered illegal as well I believe. I dont think many people do this because it is a lot tougher to copy a 400 page book then it is to copy a 3 mb file. The basic idea is the same though. It’s illegal as well.

I do believe that an artist has a right to ask for compensation from a song, whether it be a file or cd. Again, no one has really said much about my example of making my own song, and hoping to get my cut of the 99 cents every time it sells on iTunes. IF it sells 1000 times, I get a cut of that. If one person buys it and shares it, I have lost out on a lot of money.

It doesn’t matter if one is rich or not, if they would like to get compensated, they should be if people like their stuff. Painters, authors, musicians, whatever. They deserve to get paid. Do they deserve as much money as they do? Probably not. I take a lot of issues with the sports stars getting the million dollar contracts, while our teachers (myself included) make next to nothing. If I write a book about teaching, I’d hope to get compensated by people buying it. No I wouldn’t be in it for just the money, but without the money, I’d be broke and unable to live.

Thinking that artists should just be happy their stuff is out there and being seen, is a very Utopian view of a world we don’t live in and won’t for an extremely long time. To get people to do things just for the sake of doing things without compensation somehow is not going to happen right away. Think about it, would you do YOUR job, go to work everyday, just because someone said you should? No, of course not, you go because you need the paycheck. And while some people love their jobs, take their paycheck away, and see how long they continue to do it. Same with artists.

My brother buys all his music, either hard copies or on iTunes, same with DVDs. I tell him I can get it for free, but he doesn’t. It helps to have money to burn, but still.

No, no one looses money. It’s just that they don’t gain what they potentially might have gained.

[quote]So you advocate breaking the law? [/quote]

I do.

[quote]Actually, i did a little research and the way to change laws is to talk to your state representatives. [/quote]

What if I don’t want to change the law, what if I want to abolish it, along with the government?

What bureaucrat would I talk to then?

[quote]It seems a bit “off” to compare wanting your favorite song free to people wanting their basic rights as a human being, don’t you think?[/quote]

Isn’t my right to be left alone by governments and media cartels a basic human right? Isn’t it my right to share with other people without being forced into jail?

An artist has the right to protect his or her creation.

Stop trying to take away that freedom.[/quote]

Well, freedom is what it comes down to. Artists need their freedom to create and live of their music, but I need some freedom as well. I’m talking about the freedom to listen to music I like, the freedom to discover new music and the freedom to share music I love with my friends.

I download lots of music, but if I like the artist then I want more from that artist. Best way to do it is of course to give money and support, so I buy records and merchandise and try to see a concert or two.

Music is problematic, compared to other things. Most things you can taste or try in the store (of course true for music as well) and some things can actually be returned if you don’t like it. If I buy something that looks good in the store, say a shirt and then when I get home I find that the shirt doesn’t match the pants I wanted to wear it with. Well,then I go back and return the shirt.

Now, when I buy an album and find out at home that it’s stale and repetitive, what are my odds at returning it? Even if we are just talking about a store credit. I can tell you, they are slim to nothing. Ergo I download, try it and THEN I might buy it. That’s my freedom!

It may not be the Borgs who are coming, but it’s nonetheless impossible to stop. Filesharing is here to stay. Adapt.

But if so many people breaks the law without a second though, might it not be that the law should have been changed?

[quote comment="146447"]These kids are not being taught right from wrong by their parents. As much as you want to blame the kids, it’s the parents’ fault. They need to learn about computers if they are going to parent a child who uses one. They NEED to understand what’s going on.[/quote]

My parents and others parents that i know of already knows about computers and understands what is going on. The “problem” is that they care as much about the law as i do. They actually asks me to download for them sometimes.

[quote comment="146447"]Yes, this is a simple case of file sharing, but what about in the future when they grow up? What’s to stop them from stealing a soda from a store, money from a bank, life from another human? Yeah, that’s extreme, but what is to stop them from saying, I’m thirsty, I’m poor, that guy annoys me and then going and doing those things? They already have the attitude that it’s “Not their problem”. They are already blaming others for their own actions. This will only continue onto bigger things as they grow.[/quote]

There’s a huge difference in stealing and filesharing. In the case of stealing the owner loses the object which is stolen. in the case of filesharing, new copies are being made and the original is still there. A totally new file made up of the exact same sequence of one’s and zero’s is being created, and which the computers then interpret as a movie or a song which is exactly like the original. If i would walk into a store, look at the receipt on the soda bottle and make my own soda thats exactly the same as the soda in the store, then the soda in the store is still there unlike if i would have stolen it. If lots of people would make their own soda the soda companies would lose money, but would they be criminals because the soda company had “copyright” on the soda, or should they be considered criminals.

Sure, the artists behind a music album or the people behind a great movie have worked hard for their product and needs money in return to be able to live. But it would still be practically the same if i would walk into a store look at some clothes and make my own. The clothes have been designed by someone and others have worked in factories to produce them. Behind all products there is someone or a lot of someones who may have worked their ass of so that we consumers may enjoy their product. But if we create copies of their products they can’t get their money, but making an identical copy of something is not stealing. Should my great-grandmother be considered a criminal because she bakes bread thats almost the same as the bread sold in the store?

[quote comment="146447"]Kids do not truly understand the shades of grey in these matters. They only truly understand right and wrong. File sharing is a grey area. For kids though, they should be taught simply, it is against the law, so you don’t do it. When they are older, they can think about things and look at the problems that DRM causes and why people do turn to file sharing, such as Google’s recent decision to get out of the business and not allow you to play their drm files anymore despite the fact you paid for them. Is that right? Should those people be denied the product they paid for? No of course not! So go ahead and redownload it off of a torrent site or filesharing app. These people tried to do the right thing and got screwed! Does FOX allow me to watch missed episodes of Hell’s Kitchen? Nope, just clips! SO hell with that, I’m going to download it. I’m not waiting for them to put out a DVD! ABC plays the last few episodes of their shows, as does NBC, so if I miss an episode, I go to their site and watch it their, even with an ad or two. With a legal alternative, I will choose that method. However, mess around with that legal method, and yes, I’ll turn to filesharing.

You understand this, and kids may say, yeah I get that, but they really don’t. They are not adults yet, despite the fact they grow up quicker today than ever before. Black and white is what they truly understand. For these kids in the story, they are basically saying “Yes, this is wrong but I don’t care. Everyone else does it, so I will too.” Well, as my parents used to say, if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? I always said no, of course not.

Maybe today’s children haven’t been told that. Maybe they think, yeah, I would jump of a bridge, why not?[/quote]

Filesharing is indeed a greyzone but the kids do understand that it is against the law and they do understand that crime is wrong. But they still don’t care because it’s socially acceptable. The people around them, not just their kid friends but adults too, doesn’t think there is anything wrong with filesharing. it’s probably not just “Yes, this is wrong but I don’t care. Everyone else does it, so I will too.”, i think it may be more like this in many cases “The stupid laws says this is wrong but everyone else thinks it’s okay so why shouldn’t i do it too.” If you steal something or abuse someone, which is also a crime, then you are hurting other people and most kids thinks it’s wrong to hurt other people, but in the case of filesharing they probably don’t think they are hurting someone, because the people around them thinks it’s ok. That is not the case of stealing, stealing is wrong in public opinion and that affects the children. They are taught by society that stealing is wrong, but they are not taught that filesharing is wrong, quite the opposite actually.

It is not a case of doing something wrong because other people do it. It is a case of doing something that they think is not wrong.

Btw i wouldn’t watch FOX whatever shows are on, it’s probably the worlds most biased news channel and i strongly advice anyone to NOT watch it.

[quote comment="146460"][quote]

You’re all criminals, that’s the bottom line.

An artist has the right to protect his or her creation.

Stop trying to take away that freedom.
[/quote]

Back already? :P

Controlling what someone else does with something you made is not freedom.

Controlling what someone else does is the exact opposite of freedom.[/quote]

Technically it’s “controlling what someone else does with something that previous mentioned someone him/herself has made that is exactly like something you have made is not freedom”

It’s definitely not freedom even if it’s against the law. And what are the purpose of the laws? To protect the people or to protect the profit of big companies?

[quote comment="146467"]We here in Portugal pay for our use of the internet, trust me it isnt cheap… As some of the kids stated… thoughs fuckers are rich enough what the hell do they need our money for? So Jay-Z can have the money to sell 10 kilo’s more of some fine fish scale or so Eminem “Marshal Mather’s” can continue poping his colorfull pills? or so DMX can buy more bullets to kill people that annoy him and write more songs??
I know most of what I just stated may or may not be true but the point of it is that they are surely going to get payed either way.

I say keep the US laws in the US and lets get these anti-p2p groups out of this side of the world.

Anyone want to join in with a revolt?[/quote]

You’ve got a point there but all artist are not that rich. But they are not that rich because they are not that popular and thus isn’t as exposed to filesharing as the big artist are. But their main source of income will be live-performances anyway if it isn’t already.
I’ve heard artist state that their main source of income is indeed live performances and that they actually see filesharing as a way to reach out to more people, increase their popularity, draw more people to their live-performances wich in the end contributes to more money in their pockets. I have never heard an artist state that filesharing is impairing their income and makes it harder to live.

[quote comment="146479"]I feel bad for artists, I really do, because its not their fault. They hired a large and largely successful group of people to promote them, care for their interests, and make their music available to as wide an audience as possible. The people who run the music industry are to blame, and if they decide to take their mistakes out of the pockets of artists, then once again, they are to blame. Lets lay blame where blame is due: squarely on the shoulders of frightened, ininspired, no-risk, no-reward music executives.[/quote]

Exactly, the problem with the big music corporations is that they doesn’t try to adapt to this great change and maybe also opportunity that is filesharing. Instead they try to resist in order to secure profit but in the end they will just lose money.

[quote comment="146519"]Data is not property? The “data” as you say, is a song (or album). A song that was written by someone, recorded, and then put up somewhere for others to purchase and listen to. It most certainly is property. And, it is copyrighted property. It matters not if it is data or a hard copy. Copyrighted material is copyrighted material. It is protected by law that others cannot use it for monetary gain until a certain number of years is up. I mean, that’s very basic of course.

Anyway, this is NOT the future. Content will never be totally free. Sure, an artist may start out by wanting to have his music heard, his message gvien to the people, but eventually that artist is going to need to eat. That’s where selling will come in. Unless he is independently wealthy, he”s not going to give all of his stuff away for free always. So, how is it you think content will be free in the future?[/quote]

This is almost answered in my answer to the previous quote, not fully. Even if it is music it is still data. Even a “hard copy” (which i interpret as a cd) is just a plastic disk with data on it, just a lot of one’s and zero’s. Sure, it is copyrighted property, but it shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t make money from it at all, they should make their money from live-performances. This definetly IS the future whether you like it or not, or are you saying that filesharing is diminishing?

It is and should be possible to sell something you have created.
It is but should NOT be possible to prevent others from creating identical objects for themselves.

[quote comment="146534"][quote comment="146447"]The underlying problem here is that the kids do not care that they are breaking the law. Yes, it may be a dumb law or you may not like it, but it still is the law. If you want it changed, you need to go through proper channels, not just go and break the law. [/quote]

Laws at a fundamental level are there to protect people and facilitate civilisation, thus when they are no longer relevant, they are ignored.

The fact is that the internet and p2p technology are changing the way which people interact with information. Society changes first, the law will follow later.

Don’t worry too much about artists, they managed to make great music long before megacorps tooks over their interests, they will be fine in the p2p age.[/quote]

Exactly my point but in a more compressed, thought-out and easy to read format. Above quoted person has defenitely grasped the situatin here, i hope you all will come to the same understanding sometime.

The post by Agmar was so good so i won’t bother answering any more today, if i did this post, which is already all too long, would be so long so nobody would have the psychic stamina to read it all.
Please read all the other posts by Agmar also.

Sharing is caring

Mostly nice reading, except for the quoted section here…

I hope the writer of the post does understand the difference in “stealing a soda” and “sharing digital data”.
In the first example the resource itself is displaced and hence the “wealth” is displaced.
With filesharing there is NO resource displacement. I agree, that it is questionable, if “wealth” displacement occurs, though I myself don’t think so.

What I’m trying to say is, please, PLEASE, do NOT compare “sharing files” with “stealing resources”. It is as dumb as stamping a baby sex offender cause he touched his moms breasts.

NB: If resources could be replicated as the data today, we wouldn’t have this conversation and also “stealing a soda” wouldn’t be a problem either.

Thank You for Your time!

Best way to do that is to upload a transcript, a particularly nasty transcript out of their computers.

That kind of logic only contributes toward the degeneration of social progression, if you ask me. I believe breaking kaws is sometimes necessary to illustrate a point to an otherwise stubborn government.

For instance, you can’t expect slaves to say, “Well, even though this whole slavery thing is a blatant abuse of human rights, we’ll just go along with it for now and see if we can eventually talk some sense into our oppressors!” Had no one bothered to spark a civil uprising and demonstrated raw emotion against the laws they disagreed with, social progression would have been a much more tedious process.

Obviously, slavery is a much stronger issue. I, by no means, am trying to contrast the issue of piracy with such a comparisson. However, I think modern government has become much more efficient at disabling groups from insinuating new causes and ideas. So if the pirate movement were to ever take off, I think it would have to be a full-scale call for anarcy. ;)

(P.S., of course that was just a joke)

Anyway, do you think the recording industry has any actual concern for ethics? They’re exploiting people for the harmless act of information sharing, and then parading it around like it’s some moral crusade about intellectual property. All this nonsense about monetary damages is just more scum on the bottom of the pond.

The simplest way to discern fact from fiction is to consider how something is asserted. An assertion that is sensible and can stand freely on its own merits is worth consideration. An assertion that requires others to be decieved and mislead is obviously fishy. Take a hard look at the recording industry’s methods and judge for yourself what their intentions are. They cannot hide behind the law forever.

[quote comment="146576]
Ok, touche! However, do you really think that people who file share are being persecuted like the African Americans were?[/quote]

No, it is obviously not as serious an issue as basic human rights, however the basic principles of social change are fundamentally related.

I am not meaning to trivialise the civil rights movement by comparing it to wanting your “favorate song free”, in fact it is not really about ‘getting somthing for nothing’
we are currently in a transitory period between the age of physical data management (books and paper records) and virtual information management (digital). p2p allows data to move without the restrictions imposed by a physical medium, being so easy to copy data can be available to everyone. To impose the rules of the physical universe unnecessarily on data, is stifling and counterproductive.

As an example consider the printing press, arguably, before digital data, the printing press was the technology that allowed more people access to information, taking it out of the exclusive control of medival monestaries. imagine monestaries used their lobbying power to outlaw the printing press, so they could maintain their control over information dispersal.
This is analagous to the various media companies imposing DRM restrictions, harsh copyright laws, etc on filesharing.

No, it is obviously not as serious an issue as basic human rights, however the basic principles of social change are fundamentally related.

I am not meaning to trivialise the civil rights movement by comparing it to wanting your “favorate song free”, in fact it is not really about ‘getting somthing for nothing’
we are currently in a transitory period between the age of physical data management (books and paper records) and virtual information management (digital). p2p allows data to move without the restrictions imposed by a physical medium, being so easy to copy data can be available to everyone. To impose the rules of the physical universe unnecessarily on data, is stifling and counterproductive.

As an example consider the printing press, arguably, before digital data, the printing press was the technology that allowed more people access to information, taking it out of the exclusive control of medival monestaries. imagine monestaries used their lobbying power to outlaw the printing press, so they could maintain their control over information dispersal.
This is analagous to the various media companies imposing DRM restrictions, harsh copyright laws, etc on filesharing.

Ok, touche! However, do you really think that people who file share are being persecuted like the African Americans were? Will that girl who was sued and then used by Pepsi and iTunes as a spokesperson be remembered as the Rosa Parks of the file sharing age?

It seems a bit “off” to compare wanting your favorite song free to people wanting their basic rights as a human being, don’t you think? I concede you your point, that law breaking can and has lead to change, but in your example, the change was not just a materialistic goal.

Do you really want our children to go through politics the “normal” way? It would be a tragedy to breed more lobbyists.[/quote]

Actually, i did a little research and the way to change laws is to talk to your state representatives. Yes, it is slow but it’s the way we have in place right now. This page from Arizona explains it a bit more.

http://www.lawforkids.org/changeit/index.cfm

I wish there were an easier way myself, but this is the way we are stuck with. So how do we change things like this?

I think we need to elect better people. The problem is, we keep electing the same type of person to office. Politicians. I think we need more regular everyday type people in there. People who don’t have loyalties to big coroporations. People who “get” our point of view. People with knowledge of computer and internet happenings. People who understand that it’s not all about “the internets and tubes!” You want change? Get some of these web 2.0 people to start running for office! Yes, they won’t win at first but they may make a dent in time. When that happens, then we can start to really affect the laws and see change for the better. Just my opinion though!

Do you really want our children to go through politics the “normal” way? It would be a tragedy to breed more lobbyists.[/quote]

So you advocate breaking the law? I hardly think that will change things. Maybe eventually it might convince people to take a look at things, but if you are caught, your immediate future might be unpleasant having to deal with the ramifications to that law breaking. As long as it is law, you will have to face the consequences, regardless of whether you agree with the law or not.

I have no love for the big music companies and indeed I think the future is not with them. However, artists will still want to be compensated for their work somehow. Does an artist lose money when a file is shared? No, the music companies do. Well, what if an artist is putting the songs up for sale by himself without the help of a music company? Then HE or SHE loses the money because of file sharing.

Say I make a song and sell it on itunes for 99 cents. Someone buys it, I make whatever percentage and itunes takes their cut. No record company at all. Great! Now, someone takes that file and shares it to a couple thousand people. Now I, myself, am OUT that money that they would have spent on it! I wouldn’t see the file sharing law as irrelevant. Indeed, it is important to me making a living at that point.

There aren’t any “proper” methods of influencing legislation that don’t involve breaking the law or exploiting them through informal fallacy.

Do you really want our children to go through politics the “normal” way? It would be a tragedy to breed more lobbyists.

Laws at a fundamental level are there to protect people and facilitate civilisation, thus when they are no longer relevant, they are ignored.

The fact is that the internet and p2p technology are changing the way which people interact with information. Society changes first, the law will follow later.

Don’t worry too much about artists, they managed to make great music long before megacorps tooks over their interests, they will be fine in the p2p age.